LAXMI VIJAY VERMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) dering the nature of controversy, we have heard parties finally. Resignation letter dated 29-12-2008 submitted by present respondent No. 6 is found to be not signed by him in presence of respondent No. 3 Collector and, therefore, not in conformity with provisions of section 41 (2) of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act. This finding recorded in favour of respondent No. 6 in his statutory revision by respondent No. 2 Additional Commissioner Amravati has been maintained by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3167 of 2009 vide judgment dated 6-8-2009. That writ petition was filed by present Appellant who came to be elected in by-election in vacancy caused because of acceptance of said resignation by respondent No. 3 Collector and she has been later on elected as President of respondent No. 4 Municipal Council.

(2.) Before proceeding further it is advantageous to reproduce above section 41 here.

(3.) Learned Single Judge has found that resignation letter in dispute was unconditional and it was also delivered in person. Though it was a computer printout as it was bearing signature in original, condition that said letter must be "in writing in his hand" is held to be only directory. It is also found that it has been delivered to Collector but then, as it was not signed before Collector that is respondent No. 3, it did not satisfy the mandatory requirement and hence could not become effective. It is this finding which is being assailed before us by the Appellant, who was petitioner before learned Single Judge.